Edge of Europe - A Belgian Interactive AAR

[Gen. Marshall]

I withdraw my [post=15781895]Brabrant Election Article[/post]. Other Articles have made it redundant.

 

[Tapscott]

Loewen Parliament Proposal: Aye

Bishop Van Buskirk, indeed there should be some special rights for the clergy, but I think your proposal gives too many rights, and thereby hampers the functioning of the government and the rule of law. I would like to propose this alternative proposal:


- Maximiliaan van Brabant, Delegate of Antwerp

I am supportive of your article Monsieur Brabant, but believe that the dual tribunals suggested by Bishop van Buskirk are a necessity. The spiritual implications caused by a Clergyman's conduct can be best understood by fellow priests, and I feel that the dual tribunal allow this issue to be addressed, all the while not undercutting the authority of the state.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

I say to you Mister van Brabant the same as I said to the Bishop, consider changing your proposal to cover all accepted Christian denominations. Affording special privileges to only Catholic priests discriminates me and other non-Catholics in the same way that the Dutch discriminated you.

- L. Percival Willems-Hopegood, Delegate-at-Large

 

[Marschalk]

I say to you Mister van Brabant the same as I said to the Bishop, consider changing your proposal to cover all accepted Christian denominations. Affording special privileges to only Catholic priests discriminates me and other non-Catholics in the same way that the Dutch discriminated you.

- L. Percival Willems-Hopegood, Delegate-at-Large

Sir, vast majority of our citizens are Roman Catholics. And our state religion will be Roman Catholicism. We are not going to discriminate anyone, but it is natural, that the church of the majority should get some privileges and support.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

 

[Plutonium95]

Loewen Executive Proposal: Aye
Fundamentally, do not listen to those who ask the restriction of universal suffrage. We have given them much, and yet all they do is ask for more. We must remain firm. Our revolution occurred in large part because of treacherous Dutch attempts to deny us our voting rights. Let us not fall into the same tyranny by implementing any restrictions on suffrage. Equal suffrage for all, I say!

Monseiur Daret, your Bill of Rights is still an excellent document in all respects but one. I must say that clause V.a, as written, is simply too rife with potential for abuse as written. An unscrupulous government would surely find ways to misuse this provision, and that is a check that I feel both the liberals and monarchists can support. I would either strike said article entirely or enumerate the most specific threats as below:

V.a Government censorship of the press may only occur upon the issuance of a warrant, at the request of the [lower house] by a majority vote and approval by the Supreme Court, and only in the following cases:
- Speech promoting the dissolution of the Belgian state into separate states or the secession of any part of the Belgium state
- Speech advocating the annexation of Belgium or parts of Belgium by any foreign power
- Speech advocating the persecution of any ethnic, national or religious minority within Belgium

I think that Senatorial review is more than enough for higher court appointments, however. Both the executive and legislature are already involved deeply in the process as is, and allowing the King control over appointments is only going to stuff the courts with men loyal to the King. Justice is blind, gentlemen. No one - not the clergy, not the aristocracy, not the king, no one - must be above the law.

Finally, I must turn my attention to the proposal of Bishop van Buskirk. All clauses therein except the last, which is of course implicit in the nature of any Bill of Rights, are totally unacceptable.

Article I is either already guaranteed under the mandate of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights or infringing upon it, depending on whether the Gospel is preached peacefully or, shall we say, aggressively. As you are an honorable man, I will assume the former. That being the case, such a mandate is superfluous. If were were to entertain the idea that it is the latter, then that would infringe on the freedom of others to practice religions of their choice. We personally may be Catholics, monseiur, but there are Protestants and Jews among the Belgian people as well. They are as much entitled to freedom of religion as anyone, and preventing potentially unscrupulous forces from using dishonorable means to "spread the gospel" to them must be a right reserved by the state.

I will return to Article II in a moment.

Article III is absurd, frankly. What would you think if an unscrupulous, fabulously wealthy businessman had a convenient "change of heart" and joined the clergy for tax purposes? Not only is there potential for such abuse but it shatters the idea of equality before the law. As all men are equal before God, all are equal before the law, including tax law. I am no supporter of high taxes, infringing on personal freedom and the advancement out of squalor as they are, but do support a tax regime that affects all citizens to some degree, for the sake of fairness. If I proposed an article eliminating taxes on merchants, for example, it would be good for me, but it would not be fair. I follow the same logic here.

Article IV also violates equality before the law. I do not frankly understand the purpose of such a tribunal, but it must not be made to have any legal weight. If the church wants a tribunal, it may hold one - on private grounds, with private money, and neither dispensing nor recommending any form of vigilante justice other than what is strictly within the Church's power to do, such as removing a man from his clerical office. The clergy are valuable citizens of Belgium. Thus, they are just like everyone else.

Finally, with regards to Article II, I will simply respond by telling a story.

Two years ago, I was a sergeant in the revolutionary forces. (I would be a captain by the war's end, but that was not the case yet.) We had met the Dutch in a pitched battle about a day's march south of Hainaut. We were marching back to camp to tend to the wounded, when I saw a man under a friend's command being taken to a medical tent. I had seen him around camp before - he looked old enough to be my father and seemed to be badly wounded. Curious, I walked into the medical tent to speak to him. The doctors said he would be dead in an hour and there was little they could do. The old man asked if I was a priest. I shook my head and turned to leave, assuming he wanted one, when he motioned me to stay. He told me that his name was Gunther - a German immigrant, I believe - and he was from a village in East Flanders called Bruhl that was home to a little over one hundred people, including fifty-two men. When he heard that the revolution came, he and every other man in his village had joined up. He said that his country meant enough to him that he would take the risk of signing himself and his village off to doom if it meant he could see his homeland be free. He told me how he prayed that his village could soon return home to build a better life once we had our freedom.

He sighed and told me he was the last one from his village left. I didn't know what to say.

The doctors came back in with a chaplain to give the man his last rites. I left to give them their privacy. It was only the next day I learned that, miraculously, he had survived the night. The shrapnel had not moved in towards his heart but stopped short, allowing the doctors to remove it. The surgeons got him walking in two weeks and he was discharged to go home to Bruhl. For lack of a better word, he was saved by the grace of God.

Why did I tell you all this? If Gunther can sacrifice his entire village, his entire way of life, for the cause of our great nation, must not every man do his part? We do not ask of the clergy to enter combat. We ask them to give as all other Belgian men must do - the gift of their service, valuable as any other. Would a man of God ask for any less than the ability to serve those who need it most? War tears towns apart. Everyone is hurt, and it is the only honorable thing to do to have everyone serve to try to end the pain as quickly as possible. I know that their roles are crucial, but can it be said that any other man in the village is less crucial? Is that a Christian way to live? Bishop, I have seen my friends torn apart by artillery fire and I have heard men howl into the night to be put out of their misery. Do you think anyone wants that as their lot in life? I could have stayed in Orleans after university as a successful businessman with a wonderful lady-friend and more material wealth than I could have ever dreamed of as a boy. Instead, I chose not to abandon my country and my countrymen in their hour of need. I know you claim that you are needed at home. So are so many good men who died, and we are not even asking you to risk your lives as they had. Did Jesus serve the needy from far away? No, he mingled with them, lived with them, and fought for them. He served by example. All we ask is that the clergymen of Belgium do the same.

I must now retire for the evening. Good night, gentlemen.

Savarin walks out of the convention hall, exhausted and visibly shaking from lack of sleep.

I truly appreciate all of the great points you have made here Monsieur Savarin, and you are right. The Monarchists of course refuse to compromise in anyway, as we liberals showed we were willing to do in the Executive branch, and again here in the legislative, but we shouldn't yield to them. The worry that clause V. a could be abused by the government is my chief concern, and your proposal does a good job of protecting the people's rights, while ensuring that Belgium will remain safe. I intend to revise my bill and include it. The king is no more apolitical than the PM, as much as the monarchists like to paint him as such, and he has his own agendas. The Monarch already appoints the PM, and likely half the UH, to give him such influence in all three branches of government is insanity. I appreciate that someone else sees the importance of equality even if the clergy cannot, and I commend you taking the time to tell your story for the people of this convention to hear.

In my opinion all high ranking government officials should support themselves. Taking salary from the State is the same as taking bribes.

In what way is being paid to do one's job a bribe? They are not told how to vote when they get their paycheck. It is simply there to ensure that government officials do not need to be privately wealthy to serve the people. All that said I believe that the proposal outlining pay has been dropped for now since it doesn't belong in the constitution.

I am disappointed that so many people have such little faith in the common, hardworking man. I doubt that several of the people who are saying they are just fools to be controlled by crafty politicians have spent any real time with them. I also feel that I provided a good list of reasons as to why they should have the vote, yet not one of my points have been addressed, it is simply parroted that "the Jacobin menace" will destroy our nation.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

Sir, vast majority of our citizens are Roman Catholics. And our state religion will be Roman Catholicism. We are not going to discriminate anyone, but it is natural, that the church of the majority should get some privileges and support.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

My Lord, is it not that kind of attitude from the majority that led to the situation which caused the revolution? Are we not better than the King of the Netherlands and his cronies? Roman Catholicism is not only the state faith but it is also to be that of our King. I merely ask that you treat Anglicans like myself and other non-Catholics with the same respect that you wished for from our former Dutch masters.

- L. Percival Willems-Hopegood, Delegate-at-Large


​((Darn it, what's the proper style for a Prince again?))

 

[G.K.]

/de Graaf rushes into the hall with a coat and a ton of papers in his hand, barely catching his breath/

I'm sorry gentlemen, I'm apparently late again. ((The legislative day starts here at about 5 o' clock))

I see you made a lot of good job here, so I may just give my opinion on certain proposals:

Your Excellence von Buskirk, I would like to remind You that even Austria, being a Catholic and rather reactionary state in general, has already cancelled tha tax exemptions and privilegium fori. Mr. van Brabant's proposal is clearly much more appropriate for Belgium and I feel no reason to oppose it.

Mr. Aerts, I believe that your Judiciary Article deserves our support. However, You might consider some little changes:

• I cannot agree on Justices being appionted by PM AND approving by the LH. While this may be a bit surprising considering what I represent, I believe that the King - being much more apolitical and having less powers in domestic affairs - should appoint the Justices, who should be approved by the LH.
• Judges in general should be banned from being in political parties. I know there is a similar article in your proposal, but this needs to be declared without any possibility of misinterpretation.
• You may want to add a mechanism for appointing judges for standard courts. Since they're not making any decisions, no checks or balances are needed. Let's say that heads of appropriate self-governance would appoint the local ones and the other 2 would be appointed by Monarch from a list of applicants?

I would also like to support Your Impeachment Article, except for one thing, which makes it impossible to vote for at the moment - do I understand correctly that a simple majority is enough to impeach any Delegate in the LH? Do you understand that the ruling party and the PM could legally get rid of any opposition? I believe that any form of impeachment for elected delegates is unacceptable, except a forced one connected with being convicted of a crime..

Mr de Velde, I have no objections against Your proposal on regency.

And remember gentlemen, today, a Bill of Rights need to be passed. We must do our best to ensure that Belgian citizens will be as free as the ideas of humanity demand.

And for voting:

Loewen Parliament Proposal - Ninth Revision - YES - When I finally went to bed yesterday, I was sure that I will not support this proposal, but considering the recent development, I believe it is worth voting for, even though there are flaws.
Ranked Vote For the Monarchy Proposal - YES
Delcroix List of Candidates for the Belgian Throne - ABSTAIN

 

[Plutonium95]

I have revised the Bill of Rights to better protect Freedom of Speech and Press, and am eager to hear what you think. Can I assume that since no one commented on the citizenship article there are no major issues with it?

Joint Bill of Rights V3

I. All people born in Belgian territory, or having at least one parent who is a citizen, have the right to claim Belgium citizenship. In the event of a person with a Belgian parent being born outside the country, they must apply for citizenship, but when granted it they shall be a full citizen.

II. Immigrants and other non-Belgians can apply for Belgian citizenship after having lived, and worked, in Belgium for a period of no less than ten years. Marriage to a Belgian citizen does not qualify one as being a Belgian citizen themselves.

III. All men will be viewed as equal under the law, with no prejudice based on race, social class, or beliefs.

IV. The state religion of Belgium shall be Roman Catholicism, but all religions shall be protected under the law, and the people of Belgium shall have the right to freedom of religion and worship.

V. All people shall have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble, which shall not be abridged.
a. Government censorship of the press may only occur upon the issuance of a warrant, at the request of the lower house by a majority vote and approval by the Supreme Court, and only in the following cases:
- Speech promoting the dissolution of the Belgian state into separate states or the secession of any part of the Belgium state
- Speech advocating the annexation of Belgium or parts of Belgium by any foreign power
- Speech advocating the persecution of any ethnic, national or religious minority within Belgium

VI. All people have a right to their property. It may not be seized by the government except in cases of it being illegally obtained, or for use as evidence in legal proceedings, after which it must be returned to its rightful owner. In order for property to be seized a judge must issue a warrant clearly providing an explanation as to why.

VII. A reasonable right to privacy held by all citizens, and no search may occur, except in the cases directly defined by the law.

VIII. The right to a trial by a jury of peers shall be preserved under all circumstances, no matter the crime.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Monsieur de Graaf, does the fact that the king would have appointing powers in all three branches of government not worry you? What about the PM appoints the justices and the UH approves them.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[DensleyBlair]

((Darn it, what's the proper style for a Prince again?))

((I'd use 'Your Highness.' (Note: not 'Your Royal Highness.') 'Your Grace' could also work, though I believe that tends to be used more for Dukes.))

 

[Marschalk]

I have revised the Bill of Rights to better protect Freedom of Speech and Press, and am eager to hear what you think. Can I assume that since no one commented on the citizenship article there are no major issues with it?

Clause V is very dangerous now. We clearly need more cases, in which the press can be censored. For example, according to this edition, materials promoting overthrow of our monarchy, lese majeste, hatred and calls for agression against different classes of society, blasphemy and pornography will be quite legal, and will not be censored. This gives great opportunities to the radicals of all kinds.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

 

[SirkTheMonkey]

Perhaps an acceptable compromise for Clause V of Mister Daret's Bill of Rights would be to allow legislation to define what is and is not accepted speech? If we can all agree that some speech should not be protected then we should reflect that level of agreement in our Constitution and deal with the details once government is formed. Additionally it will let us move onto other matters during the sparse time we have left at this Convention.

- L. Percival Willems-Hopegood, Delegate-at-Large

 

[Tapscott]

Clause V is very dangerous now. We clearly need more cases, in which the press can be censored. For example, according to this edition, materials promoting overthrow of our monarchy, lese majeste, hatred and calls for agression against different classes of society, blasphemy and pornography will be quite legal, and will not be censored. This gives great opportunities to the radicals of all kinds.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

My thoughts exactly. As this article is to go into the constitution, narrowing down such a list is definitely not beneficial. As it stands, only in the cases listed can press be censored, in which case people will find ways to work around the censorship. There needs to be more flexibility afforded to what can and can't be censored, so as to make sure people cannot commit harmful acts while still being technically lawful. As an example, a man can advocate the violent overthrow of the Belgian government without fearing reprisal. I recommend the article be reverted to its previous, agreed upon, state, as that adequately protects Belgium and allows the needed room for response.

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[Davout]

Gentlemen

I wish to make the following comments and suggestions regarding the proposals for the Clergy and the Judiciary. In making them, I hope my liberal friends will not fear I have changed my spots but I hold strong views on both points which I feel honour bound to express.

Van Buskirk Clergy Proposal

I personally have little time for the prattling of priests. I heard many men call out to God on both sides of the battlefield and never once saw their prayers answered. But the religious orders do good work in the schools and hospitals, and should be encouraged to do so by being granted certain exemptions.

Arrticle I - The Clergy proposal should apply to priests of all religions recognised by the State. The means of recognising a religion should be dealt with by legislation passed by the legislature at a later date but the principle of freedom of religion means that if one Faith is recognised as deserving legal privileges then all legitimate Faiths should receive those privileges, including non-Christian Faiths such as Judaism.

Article II - I would also not insist on drafting clerics into the army. I fought against enough priests on the Peninsular (and killed a few). If a man wants to fight, priest or not, he will fight. If a man does not want to fight, I don't want him because he is like to run away at the first shot. We don't need cowards to make up the numbers in the ranks.

Article III -The question of tax exemption is not straight forward for clerics is not straightforward. Catholic clerics take a vow of poverty and therefore receive no income and hold no property in their own name. They receive a living allowance by way of donations by parishioners on Sundays. For Protestant clerics, they receive a small stipend in addition to the Sunday donations which is paid by parishoners as a minimum wage. In either case it is not worth the effort of taxing. The real problem is the large income producing assets which are held by the body corporates of the Diocese or the religious order which belong to none of the members but which is for their collective benefit. This is the true source of wealth for the bishops. As the bishops do not own these assets themselves, it cannot be taxed in their hand. However, I would strongly urge that the legislation which recognises religions also recognise the body corporates of the dioceses and religious orders so that they may be taxed. For the purposes of the proposal, I would suggest a tax exemption for all clerics from income received from parish donations not greater than a sum equal to the income of an average Belgian labourer (the harvest is great but the labourers are few). All other income, from any source, should be taxed.

Article IV - Each religion is entitled to their canon law but it cannot take precedence over the state's civil and criminal jurisdiction otherwise we open the floodgates to all sorts of weird and wonderful notions, such as Protestant divorces. Canon law is to be limited to the religion's internal functionings and men's consciences.

Article V - As presently worded, it would mean that any Catholic priest would become a Belgian citizen wheresoever he may be in the world. I take this to be just loose drafting and assume what is intend is that any cleric who is a Belgian citizen retains the rights of a Belgian citizen even after they make hte misguided decision to take Holy Orders.

Galler Judiciary Article

The Aert article was a nice statement of principle but the Galler article has more meat on the bone.

My only suggestion relates to the mechanism for selecting the Judiciary. I propose that the 1st 7 Appellate judges be appointed by the PM with the sanction of a majority of the Senate and the consent of the Monarch so that the legislative and executive arms all agree to the appointments. The 7 Appellate judges are then to vote on the 1st Chief Justice with the appointment by simple majority. Once an Appellate judge dies or retires, their replacement is to be made by the Chief Justice, subject to the consent of the PM and the Monarch. If either do not consent to an appointment, the Chief Justice is to nominate a fresh replacement until there is consent (this includes putting forward a name previously rejected). This is important in making the judiciary seperate from the other 2 arms of government but stil working in co-operation with them. When a Chief Justice dies or retires, the remaining Appellate judges are to vote to appoint a new Chief Justice by majority vote. If a majority cannot not be reached after 3 rounds of voting, the PM may appoint the Chief Justice from any of the existing Appellate judges with the consent of the Monarch (ths encouraging the judges to reach a decision by the third round). Once a new Chief justice is appointed, they will then appoint the new Appellate judge to fill the space of the old Chief Justice as per the procedure outlined above.

Patrice Burke

((And happy Bastille Day!))

 

[Plutonium95]

Clause V is very dangerous now. We clearly need more cases, in which the press can be censored. For example, according to this edition, materials promoting overthrow of our monarchy, lese majeste, hatred and calls for agression against different classes of society, blasphemy and pornography will be quite legal, and will not be censored. This gives great opportunities to the radicals of all kinds.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

How about the following

- Speech promoting the dissolution of the Belgian state into separate states or the secession of any part of the Belgium state
- Speech advocating the annexation of Belgium or parts of Belgium by any foreign power
- Speech advocating the persecution of any ethnic, national or religious minority within Belgium
- Speech advocating the overthrow of the Monarch by force of arms ((Since the monarch can be removed in some bills I don't want to make it impossible to vote out the monarch, so I specify force of arms))
- Speech advocating violence against specific classes of society

I don't intend to make it illegal to hate different classes, but stopping people from advocating violence based on class is fair. I will not include morality clauses such as censorship of blasphemy and pornography directly in the constitution. They do not pose a risk to the lives of Belgians or the unity of the Belgian nation.

Alternatively would people rather go to the original proposal that just said actively trying to harm or dismantle the nation will not be protected, and then allow legislation to define that speech. This is a tricky issue due to some speech being very dangerous to the integrity and unity of the nation, yet if it is left too open ended people could block speech that just disagrees with the government.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[yourworstnightm]

Monsieur de Graaf, does the fact that the king would have appointing powers in all three branches of government not worry you? What about the PM appoints the justices and the UH approves them.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

I can't support anything involving the Upper House until we know if the Upper House will be a honorable gathering of gentlemen, or a Jacobin lynch mob.

 

[Tapscott]

How about the following



I don't intend to make it illegal to hate different classes, but stopping people from advocating violence based on class is fair. I will not include morality clauses such as censorship of blasphemy and pornography directly in the constitution. They do not pose a risk to the lives of Belgians or the unity of the Belgian nation.

Alternatively would people rather go to the original proposal that just said actively trying to harm or dismantle the nation will not be protected, and then allow legislation to define that speech. This is a tricky issue due to some speech being very dangerous to the integrity and unity of the nation, yet if it is left too open ended people could block speech that just disagrees with the government.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

I say we revert to the original wording. I believe it was something along the lines of 'works/statements that actively harm the Belgian state and people', and we then proceed to define that in later legislation. ((Sorta like Thunder mentions in that constitution-writing guide of him. We need not include everything in the constitution.))

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

 

[Davout]

Clause V is very dangerous now. We clearly need more cases, in which the press can be censored. For example, according to this edition, materials promoting overthrow of our monarchy, lese majeste, hatred and calls for agression against different classes of society, blasphemy and pornography will be quite legal, and will not be censored. This gives great opportunities to the radicals of all kinds.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

If you ban publications promoting calls for agression against different classes of society, balsphemy and pornography, I have very little to read in my leisure time.

Your comments about overthrowing of the Monarch, or for that matter the broader legitimate government, by force would more properly be dealt with by the concept of sedition although what constitutes sedition should be defined in legislation to be passed at a later date.

 

[Plutonium95]

I can't support anything involving the Upper House until we know if the Upper House will be a honorable gathering of gentlemen, or a Jacobin lynch mob.

In what world would the UH be a "Jacobin lynch mob" Right now the leading proposal has it being half appointed by the PM and half by the Monarch, with veto power over each other. It isn't even as if the UH is being elected by the people, this reactionary monarchist philosophy that giving the people a say in how they are ruled will lead to lynch mobs and anarchy is ridiculous.

Joint Bill of Rights V4
I. All people born in Belgian territory, or having at least one parent who is a citizen, have the right to claim Belgium citizenship. In the event of a person with a Belgian parent being born outside the country, they must apply for citizenship, but when granted it they shall be a full citizen.

II. Immigrants and other non-Belgians can apply for Belgian citizenship after having lived, and worked, in Belgium for a period of no less than ten years. Marriage to a Belgian citizen does not qualify one as being a Belgian citizen themselves.

III. All men will be viewed as equal under the law, with no prejudice based on race, social class, or beliefs.

IV. The state religion of Belgium shall be Roman Catholicism, but all religions shall be protected under the law, and the people of Belgium shall have the right to freedom of religion and worship.

V. All people shall have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble, which shall not be abridged.
a. The Freedom of the Press shall be moderately restricted by the Government, but only in the case of actively trying to dismantle or otherwise seriously harm the Belgian state. Political dissension and disagreement with government practices are still protected forms of speech. ((The definition will be better defined through legislation at a later date))

VI. All people have a right to their property. It may not be seized by the government except in cases of it being illegally obtained, or for use as evidence in legal proceedings, after which it must be returned to its rightful owner. In order for property to be seized a judge must issue a warrant clearly providing an explanation as to why.

VII. A reasonable right to privacy held by all citizens, and no search may occur, except in the cases directly defined by the law.

VIII. The right to a trial by a jury of peers shall be preserved under all circumstances, no matter the crime.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Is there anything other than clause five that needs changed, or anything that needs added?

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

 

[Marschalk]

I say we revert to the original wording. I believe it was something along the lines of 'works/statements that actively harm the Belgian state and people', and we then proceed to define that in later legislation. ((Sorta like Thunder mentions in that constitution-writing guide of him. We need not include everything in the constitution.))

~ Sébastien Delcroix, Bishop of Brabant

I agree, we should revert to the original wording.

- Charles, Prince de Ligne

 

[yourworstnightm]

In what world would the UH be a "Jacobin lynch mob" Right now the leading proposal has it being half appointed by the PM and half by the Monarch, with veto power over each other. It isn't even as if the UH is being elected by the people, this reactionary monarchist philosophy that giving the people a say in how they are ruled will lead to lynch mobs and anarchy is ridiculous.

Delegate from Liège, Michel Daret

The Prime Minister should have no say in appointments to the Upper House.